Every college student who wants to graduate has to choose a major. Some decide their major while they are in high school, others come to college having a general feel of what they want to pursue but do not decide on a major until they take some classes they are interested in. Unfortunately, I have not chosen a major and need to choose one by the end of the semester in order to enroll again. I want to choose the major through which I can do the most moral good. However, without holding to any philosophy concerning moral good, I have realized choosing this major is quite difficult. A fortunate aspect about this situation is that I am taking a philosophy course this semester through which I have been introduced to utilitarianism, which I think …show more content…
I would be affected, since it is my major. Those who would be teaching me as well as those being taught alongside me would also be affected. The people affected by my future field as well as within it will be counted as well. Finally, my friends and family could be affected, because of their relationship with me.
With these people being identified I can move to step three and four which determine how each person will be affected in regards to each option, whether in a painful or pleasurable way and then calculate, via a hedonic calculus, the balance of pleasures and pains for each person. I will consider how much pain and pleasure each person would receive if I choose that major and place an arbitrary number to represent what I think the value of the pleasure/pain
…show more content…
I would categorize this problem by saying that utilitarianism can come to wrong answers. For example, we will put ourselves in the position of a utilitarian doctor. He has five patients; four of them are going to die unless they each have a unique organ transplant. The fifth patient is completely fine since he is simply recovering from minor surgery. This patient has the heart, lung, kidney, and liver that the others need. If we follow the utilitarian method, the doctor could give life to four people if he just took the life of one. I see nothing in either act nor rule utilitarianism that would prevent this from being justified. The act itself supplies the total best consequences of everyone and if it were made a rule it would still give the same result. It seems that in utilitarianism, individual human rights would not exist. Whatever is most beneficial for the most people is the morally right to do, even if it unbearably painful for the individual. My conclusion is that if utilitarianism was used universally and consistently it would bring us the wrong conclusions in many
When viewing organ donation from a moral standpoint we come across many different views depending on the ethical theory. The controversy lies between what is the underlying value and what act is right or wrong. Deciding what is best for both parties and acting out of virtue and not selfishness is another debatable belief. Viewing Kant and Utilitarianism theories we can determine what they would have thought on organ donation. Although it seems judicious, there are professionals who seek the attention to be famous and the first to accomplish something. Although we are responsible for ourselves and our children, the motives of a professional can seem genuine when we are in desperate times which in fact are the opposite. When faced with a decision about our or our children’s life and well being we may be a little naïve. The decisions the patients who were essentially guinea pigs for the first transplants and organ donation saw no other options since they were dying anyways. Although these doctors saw this as an opportunity to be the first one to do this and be famous they also helped further our medical technology. The debate is if they did it with all good ethical reasoning. Of course they had to do it on someone and preying upon the sick and dying was their only choice. Therefore we are responsible for our own health but when it is compromised the decisions we make can also be compromised.
Utilitarianism argues that, we need to consider how much overall happiness of the action could bring, considering everyone involved. For example, how will Brittany’s choice for euthanasia affect her husband, friend, and parents? In Craig’s case, how will his choice for euthanasia affect his wife, son, and daughter? In both of their cases, that devastation that they will die is already difficult for them, and their families. Craig’ wife and his two children were sad that he was making the decision to die before his illness consumed him. Her daughter speaks on how hard it was for her, and in a sense relieved, she was not present when her father took his own life. Brittany was a newlywed, it was extremely sad for her husband and brother in law to know she was taking her life beforehand. To make a choice an act-utilitarian would need to balance out the overall happiness compared to the suffering. Both Brittany and Craig will eventually die. If they both let their terminal illness progress they would inflict extreme suffering on themselves and their family as they witnessed their pain. In Craig’s case, his illness will get worst it will cause paralysis. His major concern was on how would he be able to let
"Ethical utilitarianism can most generally be described as the principle that states that the rightness or wrongness of action is determined by the goodness and badness of their consequences." (Utilitarianism EOP 9: 603.) Following this guide line the morally right decision to make is to rescue the group with five ...
The case under study is of the surgeon who has to decide killing of a normal, but unjust person for the sake of saving five sick people. An act utilitarian in this case would be considering every probable consequences of sacrificing the sixth normal patient while on the other hand, a rule utilitarian will possibly look for the consequences associated with performing such an operation every time a situation like thos would arise. One of the potential rules would claim that: whenever any surgeon can kill one healthy person for the basic purpose of transplanting his organs to save more than one person who actually needs them, then he can surely do it.
“Utilitarianism is the creed which accepts as the foundations of morals utility of the greatest happiness principle holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” (Mil, 90). Utilitarianism ethics is based on the greatest good for the greatest number meaning that the moral agent does what he/she thinks will be
The main principle of utilitarianism is the greatest happiness principle. It states that, "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure" (Mill, 1863, Ch. 2, p330). In other words, it results with the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people that are involved.
So by looking at the definition of rule utilitarianism, the doctors would have to look at the overall concept that is related to everyone and ask for the permission before injecting the patient. By this act, it will not give them the maximum of pleasure over pain. Whereas if it was an act utilitarian, it would produce greatest pleasure over pain by following the act utilitarianism because, by not telling or asking the patients would give them the results they wanted without even asking the patients. If somehow they found the cure of the cancer by trying the cancer injections on the patients without their consent at a hospital, that would still be wrong because the patients will not know that the injections that they are given are not for their treatment but an
National Endowment for Financial Education. (2006). Ethics - Utilitarian Ethics: A Framework for Making Decisions. Retrieved from Daniels Fund - College Life for Daniels Scholars: http://nefe.danielsfund.org/ethics/section_two/ue.html
In Scenario II, it is more difficult to discern exactly what an (Act) Utilitarian would say about the morality of the choices made since these choices bring pain in suffering to a greater number of people. The loss of three fetuses, that were not otherwise going to be aborted, would have a tremendous effect on many people. The mothers and their families would experience a great deal of pain and suffering over this loss. However, when weighed with the happiness brought to thousand of cured people, a Utilitarian would say the acts were moral. Since utilitarianism states that in any situation where there is a moral choice to make, the right thing to do is that which is likely to produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.
However, this creates a conflict of morality. He comes to the conclusion that there is a flaw with utilitarianism unless we completely change the parameters. By doing so, killing one person to save two, and doing so on a regular basis would be okay. He uses the example that Y and Z are dying. Y needs a heart transplant. X needs a lung transplant. If a recently deceased person were a donor, Y and Z can be saved. Y and Z then ask, Why don 't we just kill a suitable donor? The medical procedures to save Y and Z are available, and in other medical treatments, a doctor 's failure to provide the service would be regarded as equivalent to killing the two patients. So, by not killing an innocent "donor" for the necessary heart and lungs, the doctor chooses to kill Y and Z. Harris proposes objections to killing one to save two and in the end, the Survival Lottery comes out of it. The survival lottery puts everyone on an even playing field for being chosen. In this situation, you would have to make sure that everyone is aware that their own chances of living are increased due to the fact that organ donation will no longer depend on the few people who become organ donors. Those who object to being chosen in the survival lottery would be labeled
Two ideologies that exist in ethics and apply to decision-making are utilitarian and deontological viewpoints. Ethical theories provide a systematic approach to decision-making toward the applications of standard principles. “In utilitarian ethics, outcomes justify the means or ways to achieve it” (Mandal, Ponnambath, & Parija, 2016, p. 5). Decisions made considering utility are based benefitting the greatest number of people. In utilitarianism, outcomes determine the moral nature of interventions. Some people are to experience harm, but the overall outcome is good for most individuals. Applying utilitarianism personally or professionally seems relevant when considering its ideology maximizes happiness and minimizes suffering. Utilitarianism
A utilitarian approach to moral reasoning is also one where different options are weighed, although utilitarians are interested in minimising harm and maximising benefit. Importantly, utilitarians hold a universal perspective when reasoning, where they consider the impact upon all those who may be affected, who have interests of their own (Grace & Cohen 2013: 14-15).
A utilitarian would argue that organ donations save lives because when citizens continue to donate their organs, more lives are spared. Gregory Pence mentioned in his book titled “Classic Works in Medical Ethics” that three thousand Americans lose their lives while waiting for an organ transplant. Nevertheless, if organ donations become prevalent it would save or prolong some of the lives in America (Pense, 2007, 75). For example the risk of a kidney transplant ending in death or disabilities is three to ten thousand and in comparison to liposuction the risks are relatively the same (Pense, 2007, 62). A utilitarian would argue that people would rather help theirselves through liposuction instead of helping others. Other theorists such as Kant fail to realize the experience of donating an organ outweighs the potential harm to the donor (Pense, 2007, 62). Adult organ donations can be taken from people that have been recently deceased. This means that there is no physical harm or risk to the person donating the organ. Nonetheless, doctors using donated organs from the recently deceased to save many lives, would create good consequences for the organ recipient population. The chance of organ donations succeeding is greater than the negative outcome (Pense 2007, p ...
Happiness is the ultimate goal in life. Utilitarianism is simple, it claims that an action is morally right if and only if doing the action maximizes pleasure. An action is morally wrong if it fails to maximize pleasure. it help people, and morally wrong actions harm people You make people happy when you help them and you make them unhappy when you harm them. In this paper, I will show that Utilitarianism is a true ethical theory because it (benefits the greater good) is encompasses all beings in society, is impartial (nonpartisan). First I will explain why Utilitarianism promotes the greatest pleasure for the most people. Next, I will set out to explain how Utilitarianism would help with societal issues we are facing . Then, I will consider the best objection to Utilitarianism as to a lack of self interest and self good and give my reply.-morally repungnant-
Organ Transplants are one of the greatest achievements in modem medicine. However, they depend entirely on the generosity of donors and their families. Surely every compassionate person should jump at the chance, to donate their gift of life when they die! We should all be united in realising the massive positive effect a simple donor organ can have on a community! Then conclusively, looking at it from this angle, every human alive would feel it his or her unquestionable duty to donate their organs when they die?